DGC Rant: Course Ratings

[Nemmers]

First of all, let me preface this Louis CK-esque thread by making a couple disclaimers:

First: While (like many of you) I'm a full-blown, four-alarm neurotic obsessive when it comes to disc golf, I'm a beginner. I've been exposed to the game for the majority of my adult life, but I've never picked up a disc to play until recently.

Second: Having said that, I really do fully understand and appreciate DGCoursereview.com and her devoted members; their thoughts, opinions, and advice have grown the sport over the years and have immeasurably improved the parks we're able to enjoy by way of free advertising and constructive criticism.

That said, I have a hard time accepting a poor review of a free DGC. Even if it's just nine baskets for 27-par in an open field, I have hard time swallowing that. Assuming the baskets perform as they're supposed to, of course.

Considering that we play for FREE -- on land that does not belong to us -- whose owner bought and paid for the equipment we use without paying rent -- took the time to design the course (elementary as it may be) -- and allows us to use it anytime without reservations and with no notice -- I don't think it's out of line to say, "Hey, the dude's a nice guy....let's give him at least a three for effort."

Now, I'm not one of those bleeding heart, "everyone's a winner," give-everyone-who-suits-up-a-trophy kind of guys. You can't put trash cans in your backyard and call it a public DGC. But I think that if it's fair game on DGCR then we should at least acknowledge the effort and utilization of equipment with a nod to the effort. I only say this because I've seen a couple reviews that pee all over the course without even mentioning the fact that they themselves didn't have the time, motivation, or resources to put up one of their own and have their efforts held to the fire of public scrutiny.

There. It's off my chest. I know return you to your regularly scheduled programming.



PS. I like the rating system on DGCR the way it is....let's us all know what's worth playing based on what we like and our respective skill levels. Just wanted to remind myself how how lucky we all are to be fanatical about a sport that, potentially, requires only our enjoyment to stay relevant and thrive.

 

[jongoff09]

I kinda agree and kinda don't. I don't think anyone should bash a person personally for a course that is in the ground as long as it is safe for everyone to play, but this site is a Review site and if a course is 9 short open field shots, it sure doesn't deserve a "three for effort." A three rating is considered a "Good" course, and 9 open shots doesn't make a good course. That to me would barely be a passable course for a 1.5 rating.

 

[IHearChains]

That said, I have a hard time accepting a poor review of a free DGC. Even if it's just nine baskets for 27-par in an open field, I have hard time swallowing that. Assuming the baskets perform as they're supposed to, of course.

Considering that we play for FREE -- on land that does not belong to us -- whose owner bought and paid for the equipment we use without paying rent -- took the time to design the course (elementary as it may be) -- and allows us to use it anytime without reservations and with no notice -- I don't think it's out of line to say, "Hey, the dude's a nice guy....let's give him at least a three for effort."

I'd think 9 baskets in an open field would normally be better than a 1.0 or 0.5 unless there were some major problems. There are some truly bad courses. Like baskets missing, no maintenance, no signage, safety problems throwing over play structures, makeshift baskets that are broken or poorly designed, physically dangerous hazards, etc. When you get three or four of those all on the same course....well...some courses really do deserve low rankings.

 

[scarpfish]

I have a hard time accepting a poor review of a free DGC.

I don't. Some free DGC's are simply better than others. The whole point of the review system is to separate the wheat from the chaff. Just because someone, or even multiple people give a course a poor score, doesn't mean someone else can't come along, like that course, and give it a better one later.

I don't think it's out of line to say, "Hey, the dude's a nice guy....let's give him at least a three for effort."

I don't think its out of line to say that. I do think its out of line to give him a three for effort when his course sucks. It's not fair to courses that deserve a 3 because they are well, actually kind of decent.

 

[New013]

So basically people who have never helped install a course shouldn't have opinions and/or people who aren't afraid to let somebody know their course sucks shouldn't have opinion and/or people who don't agree with you shouldn't have an opinion....

Sometimes it's not easy to push a deuce out but just because I tried real hard and put a lot of effort in to it doesn't make it good, it's still ****.



... and if you're particularly upset about arrowhead and its reviews or my review of the course i don't really know what to tell you, the course sucks.

 

[BigAl724]

I'm assuming you're including me as one of those recent reviews since I gave a 9 hole course completely set in an open field a very low rating. If you weren't talking about my review, I apologize. But I do truly appreciate that fact that our sport is often free and I'm not someone that thinks it's bad for a course to charge people to play it. And I did give the church props for having a dg course on the site of their future church. However, I believe the rating system should be as objective as possible, and there were other reasons to why I gave Cambridge Park such a low rating other than the technical asoect of the course - those reasons are noted in my review. If I'm reviewing a course, it's my job to warn other people about what rhey are getting into, since the majority on here are serious enough players. The rating system is for us and not the course owners/designers after all.

 

[eegor]

If the course isn't fun to play, it gets a bad rating... free or not. If it's fun and/or challenging, the rating goes up. That's the way it is.

 

[Dave242]

The Nemmers rating scale goes from 3.0 to 8.0.
There......fixed.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Did anyone else see an inverse relationship between "people found this helpful" and the rating given?

We're definitely talking about Arrowhead, right?

 

[BogeyNoMore]

If it's a course, you can compare it to other courses, and come up with some sort of objective rating. Just because it's free or pay to play, or someone nice put it in, or the Parks and Recs Dept spent more money or less money, yada, yada, yada ad infinitum...

None of that has any impact on how a course plays and whether it's worth going out of your way for or spending your limited vacation time on it. Decent/good ratings shouldn't just be awarded merely because they put in some baskets that catch well. As I've said several times before, the real value of objective reviews is that they help people determine where they wanna spend time when they leave home, and which destinations are worth spending their hard earned money to visit.

The only reason I read reviews of my local courses is to see who shares my DG values, to determine if I should read any more of their reviews. We all know were going to play every local course at least once to see what's going on for ourselves.

You wanna say it's great they put a course in, or so and so is a wonderful guy, or thanks for the effort, great! Write it in your review... but keep the ratings and the reviews objective... or else they're meaningless.

That doesn't mean you have to agree with what everyone else said - some of the best reviews are from people who have dissenting points of view, but as long as they're objective they're useful.

I don't at all like the idea of handing out ratings "just for trying." This isn't kindergarten - you don't get a gold star just because you show up. Ratings, should be earned through results, not effort. You can write a review that tactfully says "A" for effort, "D" for execution. I've done so myself.

Not to seem full of myself, but stuff like this is why I value TR's opinions.

 

[mashnut]

I use the course ratings to decide what the best courses to play on my road trips are. I would be pissed if I showed up at a 3 rated course and it was 9 baskets in a field that got a participation ribbon rating. The scale goes from 0 to 5, and that's the scale of all the disc golf courses out there. We're not rating parks without courses, nor are we rating the effort of the designer. We're rating what's in the ground as it compares to the other 5000 courses out there. There really are bad courses that are at the bottom of that list and it makes the rating scale useless if you compress all the places that have baskets and someone who "tried" into only the top third of the scale.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

I agree with the OP's sentiment to a degree, but coming from a different direction: having played in the old days when there were relatively few courses. You'd get in your car and drive a couple of hours to play a course that'd be rated 2.5 today and think it was a good day.

I used to say that every small town in America would eventually have a Disc Golf course like they do tennis and basketball courts. That day is pretty much here and my mind is blown. As a result, it's hard not to rate courses 1.0 higher than they really should be, on the average. It's unbelievable to me how in such a short time we've gone from what I had when I was in my twenties to what we have now.

It's kind of strange, too. I used to play many many many multiple rounds at the same course (namely Grand Woods Park, and later, heavenly Hudson Mills). Now I play so many different courses that I wish I had 1,500 days in a year instead of 365 (of which adulthood only permits me about 35 to truly get out and play like I'd want). It's weird playing so many fantastic courses once a year within a couple hour's drive of me...

When I first moved up to Michigan in the mid-'90s, there were what? Three courses in Grand Rapids, two in Lansing, two in Ann Arbor, one in Kalamazoo (and a few in Detroit, I never made it over there until I started playing MDGO events in '98), and when I FIRST got into the sport, I only knew of two or three within reach of me in Indiana.

Not enough time to cut this diatribe in half like I need to, but what I'm saying is that a 2.5 in reality seems like a 3.5 to me...

 

[Grungedude42]

I think it's great that someone takes the time and effort to install a course for public play. But, if in spite of their dreams and efforts, their course sucks, they need that useful feedback. Maybe there's some way to improve the course, or maybe that person should go find another use of their time and energy. Not everyone can or will build a 5-disc rated course. Besides, ratings aren't designed to provide installers ego-boosts. They're designed, as others have said, to help players suggest courses to other players.
If you're looking for an ego boost, don't build a course. Buy a puppy instead. Disc golfers provide far less unconditional love.

 

[Stardoggy]

I use the course ratings to decide what the best courses to play on my road trips are. I would be pissed if I showed up at a 3 rated course and it was 9 baskets in a field that got a participation ribbon rating. The scale goes from 0 to 5, and that's the scale of all the disc golf courses out there. We're not rating parks without courses, nor are we rating the effort of the designer. We're rating what's in the ground as it compares to the other 5000 courses out there. There really are bad courses that are at the bottom of that list and it makes the rating scale useless if you compress all the places that have baskets and someone who "tried" into only the top third of the scale.

I've had this happen, especially in very rural areas. Went to a 3 disc course, go there, and there was no teepads, no signs, and just random baskets scattered throughout the park. I gave it a .5, I believe...but only because somebody put the time in to put baskets in the ground.

So I said...hey Lama...how about a little something...you know...for the effort.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

still wish it was a 1-10 system. Too many courses in the 2-3 range are not properly rated IMO due to such a small spread it is hard for many to decipher .5 disc ratings and you would assume 20 probable ratings with 1-10 vs 10 being a 5 disc system currently. I really feel it would give better rating to many of the top courses as well which are grouped into the 4+ discs yet not really "equal" just rated that way. I think we would see less highly rated disc courses and more of a range but oh well never really use ratings to judge a course anyways always have the local lovers and haters.

 

[1978]

Its about fairness, creativity, detail, design, cleanliness, safety, and other amenities. There are many highly rated payto play courses...the infusion of money helps maintain the previously mentioned attributes. Simply being free means nothing.

That course at Cambridge probably warrants a 2 looking at the pictures.

Building a disc golf course is tough any new ones are a plus. There are some in this world that actually drive discers away from learning the sport. Those should be eliminated or upgraded.

 

[Jukeshoe]

Designers of little open niners should keep in mind that terrain is largely responsible for the end quality of the course (assuming the designer doesn't drop the ball completely).

If you take on a small park-style course design, don't expect people to give it 5 stars because you put a lot of work into it. Have some realistic expectations.

 

[sisyphus]

One one aspect, I completely agree with the OP: I appreciate any effort to put in a DG course, and try to be reasonably gentle in the text of my review if the course needs some constructive criticism.

I'm the kind of guy that will probably play any and all courses. I'm not too proud to have tried out elementary school courses ranging from Dixie Park to Springfield. But not everybody out there wants to waste time on a mediocre (or short, or 9 hole, or whatever) course.

I agree that DGCR is a great resource to research the great courses like Seviren Lang & Idlewild. These top tier courses are usually lovingly maintained by folks who sometimes get a little sensitive about getting a 4.5 instead of a 5.0. For them, I guess I feel a little sorry that this has become so competitive. These are incredible places to play regardless of the number.

So, when looking at these reviews, I always appreciate it when a review is descriptive enough that the review is useful for most of the DCGR community. The rating point scale has ten steps on it for a reason. In the end, I really hope that those folks who are invested in a course are reading, and not just looking at the 'math'.

 

[NDABRUSH]

I kinda agree and kinda don't. I don't think anyone should bash a person personally for a course that is in the ground as long as it is safe for everyone to play, but this site is a Review site and if a course is 9 short open field shots, it sure doesn't deserve a "three for effort." A three rating is considered a "Good" course, and 9 open shots doesn't make a good course. That to me would barely be a passable course for a 1.5 rating.

He is new and has little perspective, considering the small amount of courses played so far. He is obviously new to this site. A 3 is really a 6 out of 10. A 1 1/2 disc rating would be a 3 out of 10. I still think it should be 1-10 disc rating scale not 1-5. People are used to top 10 lists, not top 5 using .5s.:|

 

[scarpfish]

That course at Cambridge probably warrants a 2 looking at the pictures.

I'd consider a 1.5 generous for that course.